Does Social Issues matter when deciding your political affiliation?

[Divinity]

They're both insufficient,  I've been a part of both, but I also prefer the second model - and not even for primarily ideological reasons..though it's nice to see my private ideology bear real world fruit.  I've just noticed that both the grower and myself make more money, and there are more berries, in the second model.  I assume there are situations in which the more liberal model is a better fit, this just doesn't seem like one of them.

Thus, I'd prefer to send conservative candidates to government...if any suitable conservatives can be found.

Generally thin on the ground of late, and that's a shame.  Anymore, it's the party of treason and succession...and all I want to do is grow more berries.....

(I feel like I have to point out that both examples are full of the best people that you'd want be associated with looking out for every person in their chains.  I can't get angry at an english major who works as a  grant writer that stays on the team his grant created, for example.  What's 50-70k between fellow citizens?)

FWIW, private incentive fosters less corruption because whatever private business the government might emulate is far less corrupt than any attempt by the government to do so.  Anecdotally, there are twice as many people in the office as on the farm in a government run farm.  Those people make their salary by ensuring that funding is always there, not by being good at growing berries, or more berries.  In fact, they'd really rather prefer you didn't grow any more berries than would be needed to offset their salary.  They can't show a profit, you see, legally.....but they also cant be seen giving product away.  That's uncompetitive.  A government actor tanking the earnings of private businesses competing with it.  You get shut down for that, fast, and then no one gets any of the berries.

FWIW you're looking only at farms, and not other things. Take local broadband for example. Many areas are underrepresented. Now, the conservative solution is to give more money to the big name broadband companies to expand. Which they will do only at their convenience (if ever). On the other hand, the town of Sandy Oregon created their own locally run broadband service. They offer lower prices, expanded in areas where private refused to reach. In that, the private incentive for corruption is much higher. After all, why expand into areas where you won't be making much profit, when you can just get more money from making more promises you have no intent on actually fulfilling. I also feel like you're ignoring that politicians can and do own stock in many of these companies, which allows even more corruption on the private side of things. After all, you're not going to pass policy that hurts your bottom line.